New Magico M7 speakers

[MrSoul4470]

The M9 is $750K
M6 is $180K
So there's a lot of room for a model in between

Unless there are at least 5 to 8 Kilos of pure gold in each speaker there is absolutely no justification for a price like that. Neither from the engineering nor manufacturing side. It's just a rip-off and should get no attention.

 

[Count Arthur]

Jay's audio lab video about the M7

Over 6 minutes to basically say "I don't know".

 

[fpitas]

Yeah but they've been using aluminum tweeters since forever
I'm sure Beryllium would make them sound even better (if that's even possible )

Well...maybe. Beryllium makes a bigger difference on larger diaphragms, like the 2" or 4" diameter ones in a compression driver. I'm sure it helps the dinky ones in a dome tweeter, but maybe only near 20kHz and above.

 

[dogmamann]

Well...maybe. Beryllium makes a bigger difference on larger diaphragms, like the 2" or 4" diameter ones in a compression driver. I'm sure it helps the dinky ones in a dome tweeter, but maybe only near 20kHz and above.

Material doesn’t matter. Engineering matters. Poor implementation of beryllium can be worse than a well made metal diaphragm

 

[thewas]

Material doesn’t matter. Engineering matters. Poor implementation of beryllium can be worse than a well made metal diaphragm

In the end both matter, but I agree that I'd rather have a great engineering of a "poorer" material than a poorer engineering of a better one.

 

[Ilkless]

I thought the original pricing of the Magico A5 was very very fair. A 20% premium over a Revel 328Be? Not too bad.

The big savings were apparently on less dramatic roundovers, less complex (but still insanely so) bracing and outsourcing to a specialised firm instead of machining in-house.

 

[fpitas]

Material doesn’t matter. Engineering matters. Poor implementation of beryllium can be worse than a well made metal diaphragm

Well ok, two things: beryllium is a metal. And you can't overcome the physical properties of a substance. There is test after test showing the breakup modes of beryllium are superior.

 

[Pearljam5000]

There's something special about the beryllium sound that no other tweeter material can come close to

 

[MAB]

There's something special about the beryllium sound that no other tweeter material can come close to

An oboe?

 

[fpitas]

There's something special about the beryllium sound that no other tweeter material can come close to

Mine don't sound like anything except the music. Maybe that's what you mean?

 

[Pearljam5000]

Mine don't sound like anything except the music. Maybe that's what you mean?

Probably

 

[dogmamann]

There's something special about the beryllium sound that no other tweeter material can come close to

Here we go again! There is no sound to a material. If we match the frequency response of a potato to beryllium they would sound the same.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Here we go again! There is no sound to a material. If we match the frequency response of a potato to beryllium they would sound the same.

And yet even if this thread some members said the material does make a difference

 

[pablolie]

Does Beryllium immediately measure better in a truly relevant audible region? I know it is costly, but that by itself doesn't make it sound better.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Does Beryllium immediately measure better in a truly relevant audible region? I know it is costly, but that by itself doesn't make it sound better.

For the most part, In think, ultra premium materials like Beryllium afford the manufacturer greater latitude in their design choices. They make it easier to design a superb end product by requiring less engineering to compensate for the limitations of the material. That doesn't mean that, in the end, another speaker designed with more economical materials can't equal or even exceed results achieved by the one made with the hyper expensive materials.

But, more importantly, the primary relevance of those materials lie in their marketing value. Nothing like having woofers and midranges made with graphene and tweeters made with Beryllium to drive the retail price north of $500 k with all those amazing margins for the developer. When you sell speakers for that kind of money, you can afford to be buried in your Ferrari F-40.

 

[dualazmak]

Oh, it looks we again have some "Beryllium Discussions" on this thread...

You should be careful enough there are/were two types of beryllium drivers; forged or vacuum vapor deposited.
We have already intensively discussed on this topic so many times, for example on this thread around posts here and here...

My treasure YAMAHA 8.8 cm Beryllium dome midrange driver JA-0801 (covering 500 Hz - 6000 Hz, I believe it is still one of the best midrange drivers so far ever produced) and the 3 cm Beryllium dome tweeter driver JA-0513 are of course vacuum vapor deposited (ref. here for the latest system setup).

 

[fpitas]

Does Beryllium immediately measure better in a truly relevant audible region? I know it is costly, but that by itself doesn't make it sound better.

See my post #63. It measures better within the hearing range for large diaphragms. For a 1" dome, it may not offer much below 20kHz.

 

[617]

Does Beryllium immediately measure better in a truly relevant audible region? I know it is costly, but that by itself doesn't make it sound better.

No, it's all ultrasonics or near ultrasonic. Put a low pass filter on your music at 15k and you might not hear anything different. 90% of what we hear in tweeters is the directivity differences at 1-3khz and of course the frequency response. Plaster walls will absorb most UHF that is audible, so unless you're right in front of your speaker you may not be getting it at all.

Different materials and motors will enable the tweeter to go lower; a tweeter playing lower has wider dispersion than the woofer playing those frequencies. Different dome geometries will impact dispersion a bit as well, as will face plate shapes. Lower distortion will signal to designers that they can go lower, this is audible, but tweeter distortion isn't impacted by material as much as the motor and any efficiency gained by the waveguid

Beryllium breaks up at higher frequencies than aluminum, and I suspect diamond is even higher, but all are basically ultrasonic when they break up, even aluminum tweeters from 20 years ago.

If we're talking midranges, a beryllium makes a bit more sense but you don't see many of those.

 

[Axo1989]

No, it's all ultrasonics or near ultrasonic. Put a low pass filter on your music at 15k and you might not hear anything different. 90% of what we hear in tweeters is the directivity differences at 1-3khz and of course the frequency response. Plaster walls will absorb most UHF that is audible, so unless you're right in front of your speaker you may not be getting it at all.

Different materials and motors will enable the tweeter to go lower; a tweeter playing lower has wider dispersion than the woofer playing those frequencies. Different dome geometries will impact dispersion a bit as well, as will face plate shapes. Lower distortion will signal to designers that they can go lower, this is audible, but tweeter distortion isn't impacted by material as much as the motor and any efficiency gained by the waveguid

Beryllium breaks up at higher frequencies than aluminum, and I suspect diamond is even higher, but all are basically ultrasonic when they break up, even aluminum tweeters from 20 years ago.

If we're talking midranges, a beryllium makes a bit more sense but you don't see many of those.

That's informative about beryllium, but what about potatoes?

... If we match the frequency response of a potato to beryllium they would sound the same.

Potato fibre for the woofer maybe, but a tweeter will be tricky. Definitely calls for some engineering. Maybe immersion in a hot oil bath followed by sodium chloride deposition does the trick?

 

[MattHooper]

Potato fibre for the woofer maybe, ...

Betcha those would sound "organic."

(Well..if you bought the right brand...)